SAN FRANCISCO - MAY 05: San Francisco Police Chief George Gascon pauses as he speaks during a news conference at the San Francisco Hall of Justice May 5, 2010 in San Francisco, California. Chief Gascon discussed the ongoing investigation and corrective action of the San Francisco police crime lab where a technician tampered with and stole drug samples which jeaoparded hundreds of drug cases and possible convictions.

Photo: Justin Sullivan, Getty Images

SAN FRANCISCO - MAY 05: San Francisco Police Chief George Gascon...

Image 3 of 5

San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, who is running for state Attorney General, speaks with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board at the Chronicle on Thursday April 22, 2010 in San Francisco, Calif.

Photo: Mike Kepka, The Chronicle

San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, who is running for...

Image 4 of 5

SFCOPS04g-C-03MAR03-MT-FRL: SF District Attorney Terence Hallinan conducts a press conference about charges against Police Chief Earl Sanders and other high ranking officers. Chronicle photo by Frederic Larson ALSO RAN 03/09/03 ALSO RAN 07/17/03 Terrence Hallinan, district attorney, says San Francisco is &quo;a tough town for prosecutors.&quo; Photo caption <137,,>hallinan17_PH1<252>1046649600<252>CHRONICLE<252>SFCOPS04g-C-03MAR03-MT-FRL: SF District Attorney Terence Hallinan conducts a press conference about charges against Police Chief Earl Sanders and other high ranking officers. Chronicle photo by Frederic Larson<137><252> Terrence Hallinan, district attorney, says San Francisco is &quo;a tough town for prosecutors.&quo; CAT RAW FILES/NOT COLOR CORRECTED

SFCOPS04g-C-03MAR03-MT-FRL: SF District Attorney Terence Hallinan...

Image 5 of 5

San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, who is running for state Attorney General, speaks with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board at the Chronicle on Thursday April 22, 2010 in San Francisco, Calif.

San Francisco Police Chief George Gascón had been on the job only a few weeks last year when he stumbled onto something alarming as he sorted through officer disciplinary cases.

The chief, himself a lawyer, saw allegations in one case that could cast doubt on the officer's credibility if he were ever called to testify in court - damaging material that prosecutors would have to give to the defense under a 1963 Supreme Court ruling called Brady vs. Maryland.

The chief knew this issue well. He is a veteran of the Los Angeles Police Department, which was torn apart by the 1999 Rampart scandal in which several police officers were convicted of framing innocent people, stealing drugs, beating and shooting suspects, and other crimes.

Los Angeles defense lawyers found out that no one had told them that several of the officers had taken the stand in trials. It turned out the district attorney didn't know, either, because his office wasn't tracking the problem officers.

Eventually, more than 100 convictions were reversed - in some cases because defense attorneys hadn't had a chance to attempt to discredit the officers before juries.

With so many problem officers lurking in the legal bushes and the office under pressure from the scandal, newly elected Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley drew up the state's first police misconduct disclosure policy in 2002. The policy sets the information prosecutors expect to get from police agencies and gives an individual officer the right to challenge being branded as having a Brady-related problem.

As he looked at the San Francisco officer's file in September, Gascón says, he told his staff, "This case should be evaluated for Brady."

"I was basically given a very blank stare," Gascón recalled. "They said, 'We don't have one of those.' I said, 'How can a county not have a Brady policy?' And so I had some conversations with the D.A.'s office."

No excuses

It turned out that District Attorney Kamala Harris' office - despite the decade-old furor in Los Angeles - had no policy and did nothing to track officers whose credibility could be challenged if they were arrested for a crime or accused of in-house disciplinary charges.

"I'm not offering any excuses," Harris said. "We did not have a formal, written policy. My predecessor didn't have one, either. Most (district attorneys) don't."

A hastily ordered tabulation, begun this year as an offshoot of the police drug lab scandal, has turned up more than 135 officers whose histories might have to be disclosed to defense lawyers, sources close to the matter say.

Harris' predecessor, Terence Hallinan, was the San Francisco district attorney when the Rampart scandal exploded. He says he isn't sure why he did nothing to learn about officers who might not be credible witnesses.

"It was a tradition of thinking that the police notified us of any problems - and we just assumed the witness had no problems," Hallinan said. "Obviously, that was not right."

As for Los Angeles, he said, its problems were larger than life.

"Oh, that's L.A.," he said. "They are not good down there with the police. But in reality, it was happening here, too. We should have had a policy."

While San Francisco slumbered, a debate raged elsewhere in California about what prosecutors should do to fulfill their duty to tell defense lawyers about problem officers.

A Los Angeles Bar Association task force chaired by a federal judge recommended in 2003 that prosecutors statewide follow Los Angeles' lead in drawing up a formal policy to document problems and then act on them.

Police union leaders, however, worried that landing on a "Brady list" could be a career killer for officers - noting that arrests that did not result in convictions and misconduct charges that were not upheld were still items to be disclosed.

Elected prosecutors were loath to cross police associations that they relied on for campaign support and cash.

L. Douglas Pipes, a former Contra Costa County prosecutor who has written and lectured on Brady issues, said his colleagues were not eager to dig into officers' backgrounds - even though the risks of not doing so were obvious.

"You're potentially endangering years and years, and possibly hundreds of thousands, of convictions," Pipes said he told his colleagues.

Even his own agency did not follow his teachings. Contra Costa has yet to develop a Brady list, said Pipes, who retired in 2004. The Contra Costa district attorney's office did not return calls seeking comment.

Los Angeles prosecutors pushed their approach statewide, with similar results.

"We say, 'We have developed something that we think works, and we are happy to share it with you,' " said Lael Rubin, a 32-year veteran Los Angeles prosecutor who helped draft the policy.

The typical response, she said, was: "We know what's best for us."

Some went ahead

Some prosecutors did act.

In Santa Clara County, District Attorney Dolores Carr said she inherited a disorganized Brady list after being elected in 2006. It took a team of prosecutors about a year to cull through records and come up with an up-to-date list.

"We have to be concerned about the integrity of our convictions," Carr said. "One thing none of us wants to have happen is to go forward on the case and learn that an officer had an issue at a later date."

Other counties, including Alameda and San Mateo, lack detailed policies but maintain informal lists of officers whose records have to be disclosed to defense attorneys.

Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O'Malley said her list of about two dozen officers includes several from Oakland who were fired for allegedly lying to judges to obtain search warrants. The officers won arbitration rulings and were rehired.

"If there is a question, we turn it over," O'Malley said. "We never want to play hide the ball - we don't want to be in a position in the middle of trial and we have not disclosed it."

San Mateo County has five officers on its list, one of whom has a history of lying and will never be called to testify, said Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe.

In 2008, a commission appointed by the Legislature to examine the state's justice system recommended that each district attorney draw up disclosure policies and lists, said Santa Clara University law school Professor Gerald Uelmen, the panel's executive director.

But prosecutors bristled. "We ran into this again and again and again," Uelmen said. "This resistance to having an outside agency looking over our shoulder. They said, 'You can trust us, we know what the law is. Don't tell us how to run our shop.' "

S.F.'s sudden urgency

The disclosure spotlight is now brightest on San Francisco.

Gascón said that he first raised the issue of problem officers with Harris in September and that she agreed to draft a policy, but that discussions bogged down.

"I realize now that it did not get the appropriate level of urgency then," Gascón said. "It's getting it now."

The need to learn officers' backgrounds became "pressing," in Gascón's words, with the revelation that a crime lab technician had testified in several cases after being convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. Police never shared that conviction with prosecutors or defense attorneys.

The technician, Deborah Madden, is also suspected of having consumed drug evidence, prompting prosecutors to drop more than 600 cases in which she may have been involved.

Harris acknowledged that her office didn't try hard enough over the years to learn about problem officers.

"We operated on the assumption that we would get and receive information if the officer committed a felony," she said. It became clear that assumption was wrong, she said, "when we had an employee who had been convicted of a crime and we didn't know about it. We began looking at it, realizing we needed to have a formal policy."

But, she said, "a written Brady policy is just a piece of paper. It takes a real partnership with the police."

Harris turns for help

On Friday, Harris said she had enlisted well-known defense attorney John Keker, former president of the city's Police Commission, to help put together a system for how prosecutors will handle an eventual Brady list in San Francisco. Those officers' names won't be made public, she said - the information will be shared only with defense lawyers.

"I want to make sure that we are putting in a system that is the best that it can be," Harris said. "There are only so many people in our office that can deal with the demands. I like to talk to experts who understand these systems."

One expert, Pipes, says he has long warned that prosecutors could be vulnerable when police hide problem officers in the ranks.

"I don't want dangerous (felons) released because we have not done our job right," Pipes said. "I will not get any joy whatever in saying, 'I was right and you were wrong.' That is not going to make me feel good."